PCMAG review of the Epson R-D1

[driggett]

Here is a review of the R-D1 that was mentioned in the Leica newsgroup. Have not had time to read it though.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1812758,00.asp

Cheers,
Chris

 

[jlw]

Hmm, interesting. It's a fair enough review, in noting that the R-D 1 will appeal primarily to rangefinder-camera fans and that there are "higher-tech" cameras offer more features for less money. Of course, the same could be said of a Leica MP, so it's hard to kick.

And it's amusing to see the writer struggling to explain the basics of traditional-camera operation to an audience that probably consists largely of P&S digicam owners and gadget freaks, such as the necessarily laborious walk-through of manual focusing by 'rotating a collar around the lens'...

 

[peter_n]

So can we expect a review of the latest Dell multi-media laptop from LensWork soon? 😉

 

[jlw]

Could be an interesting project. To be in keeping with the R-D 1 review, the reviewer would have to complain about the lack of an optical range/viewfinder or any form of parallax compensation; the fact that neither L- nor M-mount lenses can be attached; the plastic body and lack of analog controls; the fact that despite the test item's high-tech features, it doesn't have the well-crafted feel and solidity of more traditional offerings; and, worst of all, the fact that it's completely battery-dependent!

To take a different tack: I've bought a lot of computer equipment in my day but, being a Mac/Unix person, without ever paying the slightest attention to PC Magazine's reviews -- even though I concede that their reviewers probably know a lot about PCs. So why would I pay any more attention to their reviews of cameras, a subject about which they obviously know a lot less?

 

[DougK]

The review was good for a chuckle, at least. Being an historian by academic training, I decided to do a little research to see if I could find out a little more about the reviewer and the magazine's testing process.

A quick Google search using the reviewer's name turned up this article (http://www.pcmag.com.my/cameratesting/) on their camera testing methodology. Interestingly, I saw no mention of subjective "UI testing" or out-of-lab real-world photography with the camera. Just a few basic benchmarks and that's it. Hopefully, they just forgot to mention usage testing. If not, their methods are highly suspect and they should be called on it.

I feel sorry for consumers who have little or no photography experience or education... they'd have no idea from this review why the camera was designed the way it is. The problem isn't limited to the computer/consumer electronics press, though. I heard a salesperson in my local MicroCenter explaining to a potential customer that "this landscape picture was brought digitally into focus which you can't do with a film camera." I pulled her aside a little bit later after her bewildered-looking customers left and gave her a quick tutorial on why that was a misleading and inaccurate statement (aside: it felt good to answer "yes" when she asked if I was a photographer or something). Anybody else remember the days when the camera salespeople at department stores actually knew something about photography?

 

[mfs]

The only part of the review that was disconcerting was the mention of the halos that were recorded. Also, why couldn't the resolution be measured??? Couldn't they focus the lens on a resolution chart?? What kind of lens were they using that prevented the resolution measurement???

The bias of the review (or reviewer) is noticeable in this comment "It is essentially a true rangefinder, which will be loved by a small number of photographers out there wishing to return to the 1950s or 1960s."

I like RF's, but I don't want to return to days of yore.

Makes you wonder who actually did the objective testing.

Martin

 

[RML]

The only part of the review that was disconcerting was the mention of the halos that were recorded. Also, why couldn't the resolution be measured??? Couldn't they focus the lens on a resolution chart?? What kind of lens were they using that prevented the resolution measurement???

A lens cap, probably. 🙂